Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Clinical Trial
. 2003 Nov;95(11):1074-81.

The impact of using a low-literacy patient education tool on process measures of diabetes care in a minority population

Affiliations
Clinical Trial

The impact of using a low-literacy patient education tool on process measures of diabetes care in a minority population

Diana M Echeverry et al. J Natl Med Assoc. 2003 Nov.

Abstract

This study evaluated the current level of diabetes care in three county clinics serving an underserved minority population and determined if a low-literacy, diabetes reminder card would enhance certain diabetes process care measures. Patients from two intervention sites were given the low-literacy, diabetes reminder card. Two-hundred-nineteen patients (87%) showed the card to their provider, and 209 charts were reviewed. American Diabetes Association guidelines had been met 37%, 71%, and 41% for foot exam, and urine and lipid tests, respectively, at the time the card was given to the patients. Of the patients who needed a foot exam, urine test, and lipid panel that day (based on ADA guidelines), 48%, 67%, and 35% received them, respectively (card effect). In the third (nonintervention) site, charts of 218 patients were reviewed. Guidelines met were 95%, 89%, and 45% for foot exam, urine and lipid tests, respectively. Interestingly, standardized progress notes containing the first two (but not the third) process measures were used at this site. We conclude that although low-literacy reminder cards did improve the ordering of process measures somewhat, they were not as effective as the utilization of progress forms with specific diabetes-related measures.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Am J Med. 1991 Jan;90(1):11-6 - PubMed
    1. Am J Cardiol. 2000 Feb 1;85(3):344-9 - PubMed
    1. Diabetes. 1989 Nov;38(11):1456-61 - PubMed
    1. N Engl J Med. 1989 Oct 19;321(16):1074-9 - PubMed
    1. Circulation. 1979 Jan;59(1):8-13 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources